Cluster 2474791

green · 9 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Yellow 1 Green 5

yellow Ryan v. Salisbury (2019)

But See · D. Haw. · signal: but see

But see DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1148 (N.D.

noting that “the use of ‘and/or’ in pleadings is not encouraged, especially in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal, but holding that the complaint’s detailed allegations of copyright infringement and use satisfied Rule 8(a)

green Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Muzin (2020)

Rule Authority · D.D.C.

To survive a motion to dismiss, Broidy “need not plead with specificity what particular proprietary information was misappropriated.” DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1145 (N.D.

green Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc. (2016)

Rule Authority · N.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion

DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc., 745 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1146 (N.D.Cal.2010).

green Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2014)

Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see

See DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc., 745 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1147 (N.D.Cal.2010) (finding that because the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the defendant’s conduct violated the Sherman Act, any claims the plaintiff “might be asserting under the UCL’s unfair prong necessarily fail as well.” (emphasis added)); Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 93 Cal.App.4th 363, 375 , 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 175 (2001) (“If the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and an ‘unf…

green Alaska Logistics, LLC v. Newtok Vill. Council (2019)

Cited (see also) · D. Alaska · signal: see also

Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co. , 618 F.3d 970 , 974 (9th Cir. 2010) ; see also DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc. , 745 F.Supp.2d 1119 , 1134 (N.D.

characterizing as redundant claim that "marshals no new factual allegations nor any new legal theories upon which [Plaintiff] could obtain relief"

green Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. (2011)

Cited (see also) · N.D. Cal. · signal: see also

The Ninth Circuit found insufficient the “conclusory” allegations that the plaintiff “has been harmed because its ongoing business and economic relationships with Customers have been disrupted.’ [The plaintiff] does not allege, for example, that it lost a contract nor that a negotiation with a Customer failed.” Id.; see also DocMagic, Inc. v. Ellie Mae, Inc., 745 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1154 (N.D.Cal.2010) (“[The intentional interference with prospective economic advantage] cause of…